RAJESH KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before dealing with the controversy which has been raised in the present writ petition, it becomes inevitable to avoid dealing with the facts as involved in the writ petition.

(2.) The Facts as involved herein are that the petitioner has purchased a Truck No. HR 40 C 0225, bearing Engine No.80G628963788, bearing Chassis No. 426031GRZ625582 from one Baljeet Singh-respondent No.5. The said sale of the truck has taken place on exchange of consideration of Rs.15.00 Lakhs on 20.12.2010 as consequence thereto a transfer letter was executed in favour of the petitioner. For the purpose of getting it registered and the registered being transfer to Dehradun, the petitioner applied for transferring the vehicle before the Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun and it is his case that alongwith the application for transfer of the registration in his name, he has submitted an application in prescribed format alongwith all the relevant documents i.e. registration certificate, insurance and fitness etc. including the NOC which was issued from R.T.O., Haryana.

(3.) After processing the documents thus supplied by the petitioner and after verifying the NOC and other documents submitted by the petitioner for transferring the Truck in his name, the registration certificate which has not been issued in favour of the petitioner though as per the petitioner's case, he had fulfilled all the formalities as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for transferring the ownership. The actual controversy germinated when on a receipt of an unknown call, a first information report was registered against the petitioner and one another co-accused Mobeen Ali in being Crime No. Nil of 2011 at ROP Premnagar, Police Station Cantt., District Dehradun under Section 41/102 Cr.P.C., later on the transfer of said criminal case, it was registered as Case Crime No.155 of 2011/50 of 2011 under Section 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. As a consequence to the registration of the said criminal case, the petitioner as well as co-accused were arrested, however, later on they were released on bail which has been granted by Incharge Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide its order dated 11.01.2011. However, the investigation in pursuance of the Case Crime No. 155 of 2011/50 of 2011 proceeded with and after conducting the investigation, it is the case of the petitioner that a final report dated 21.03.2013 was submitted by the Investigating Officer holding thereof that the petitioner happens to be the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle in question though at the time when the petitioner's application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle was being processed, the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the information which was furnished from National Crime Records Bureau which provided and information to the effect that Truck in question is not shown to have been involved in any criminal case. But still it is the case of the petitioner that the Regional Transport Officer had issued a show cause notice on 15.12.2011 directing the petitioner to submit a reply within a period of one week assigning the reasons as to why his registration may not be cancelled on the ground that NOC which has been obtained by him from Mewath, Haryana and placed where the truck was initially registered. According to Regional Transport Officer's Office, Dehradun would contended that no objection certificate was issued which constituted to be the basis of issuance of the show cause notice ultimately the Registration Officer, Transport Department i.e. respondent No.3 by the impugned order dated 04.01.2012 had cancelled the registration of the said truck on the ground as referred in the impugned order. On the ground that the Registering Authority, Nooh, Mewath, Haryana has provided an information that no such NOC which has been appended by the petitioner alongwith the application for transferring the registration was issued and if the impugned order was read in precision, the other reason which has been recorded therein is that the NOC has been issued by mistake, these two aspects cannot run together either certificate is fraudulent and not issued by authority or it has been issued by mistake in either of the circumstances, it has got all together different impact because if it has been issued wrongly then the petitioner cannot be attributed to have been indulged in the commission of any offence in furnishing the NOC at the time of getting the vehicle registered but in case if it has not been issued from the said office, then this action of cancellation of the registration would be justified.